JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 21.12.1975 passed by the Board of Revenue and also against the judgment dated 30-10-1969 passed by the Additional Commissioner. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit under Section 229-B against respondent no. 1 impleading State and the Gaon Sabha claiming sirdari rights on the allegation that he was a sub-tenant of the land in suit which went in the bed of river 25 to 30 years ago and it came out of water recently and the plaintiff's name has incorrectly been removed from the revenue papers. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent no. 1 alleging that he was zamindar of the laud in suit and after the date of vesting, he became bhumidar and the plaintiff was not the sub-tenant of the land in suit. 4. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, First Class on 28-6-1968. The respondent no. 1 preferred an appeal which has been allowed on 30-10-1969. The petitioners second appeal was dismissed on 29-12-1975. Against these two last orders the present petition has been filed. 5. I heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Verma argued that in Khasra 1334 F, the petitioners father Sita was recorded as sub-tenant of the land in suit and when the land came out of the water in 1350 F it was recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1. The land went in the bed of the river from the possession of the petitioner since last 23-24 years and this fact has been admitted by the respondent no. 1 himself in his statement as D.W. 4, as discussed by the trial court in para 1 on page 15 of the pacer book, and immediately after coming out of the water, the land should have been recorded in the name of the petitioner in the same capacity as it was recorded in 1334F. which was the entry of the settlement year. He further contended that the principle of alluvium and diluvium would apply and once the land goes in the bed of river, when it comes out, it should be recorded in the name pi the person from whose possession it went in the bed of the river. which was the entry of the settlement year. He further contended that the principle of alluvium and diluvium would apply and once the land goes in the bed of river, when it comes out, it should be recorded in the name pi the person from whose possession it went in the bed of the river. He further contended that the entry of 1334F was the entry of settlement year and those entries, have got great evidentiary value in view of the provisions of Section 57 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act as applicable to the present case. In the instant case it was not open to the respondents nos. 3 and 4, the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue to discard that entry of 1334F and to disbelieve the case of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove his subtenancy. As the petitioners land went in the bed of the river from the possession of the petitioner, as admitted by the respondent no. 1 himself, hence there was no occasion that the petitioner would have been dispossessed. Hence the findings of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue to that effect were manifestly erroneous. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents has tried to support the impugned orders and he has argued that the entry in the name of the petitioner were fictitious and the respondent no. 1 was correctly entered in the revenue papers and it is the respondent no. 1 who was correctly recorded immediately after the land emerged out of the water in 1350F. He argued that the findings of the Additional Commissioner were findings of fact. 7. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear from the own admission of the respondent no. 1 as D.W. 2 that the land went in the bed of the river and remained there for a period of 23-24 years and it came out of the river for the last 3 years only. It means when the land was recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1, it was in the bed of the river, as the statement was recorded subsequent to the date of the filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 30-6-1967. It means when the land was recorded in the name of the respondent no. 1, it was in the bed of the river, as the statement was recorded subsequent to the date of the filing of the suit. The suit was filed on 30-6-1967. The principle of alluvium and diluvium is that once the land goes in the bed of the river from the possession of a particular person and after its coming out, it is that very person who should be recorded and no other person is to be recorded in any different, capacity, inasmuch as during the period the land remained in the bed of river, there was no occasion for the change of tenancy or the change of status of the parties. The Additional Commissioner did not apply his mind to the principle of alluvium and diluvium and he appears to be of the view that while the land remained in the bed of the river, the nature of the tenancy can be changed. He held the view that while the land went in the bed of river, it was the petitioner who was recorded subtenant, but when it came out of water, it is the respondent no. (one) who was correctly recorded. He has further placed the burden on the petitioner to prove as to how he came as a sub-tenant in the year 1334F, completely forgetting the fact that 1334F was a settlement year entry. A detailed procedure has been provided under Chapter IV of the U. P. Land Revenue Act as applicable to settlement. In case the respondent no. 1 was conscious about his-rights and he was aware of the fact that the petitioner was incorrectly recorded as subtenant, he should have raised objection when the record operation was in progress. Further there is a strong presumption of the correctness of the entries of the settlement year as provided by Section 57 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act as it was on the relevant date. It is thus clear that in view of the own admission of the respondent no. 1 (vide para 1 of the trial courts order on page 15 of the paper book) the land went in the bed of river. The land was emerged after a period of 23 to 24 years and it came out of the river for the last 3 years (on the date of suit). 1 (vide para 1 of the trial courts order on page 15 of the paper book) the land went in the bed of river. The land was emerged after a period of 23 to 24 years and it came out of the river for the last 3 years (on the date of suit). Hence it is clear that there should be no change in the nature of tenancy for the last 23 to 24 years and after the land came out of the water it should be recorded in the name of the petitioner as there was no occasion to change the tenancy of the petitioner when the land was in the bed of the river. 8. It is thus clear that the approach of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in deciding the case was not correct. In view of the discussion made above the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are manifestly erroneous. 9. The result is that the petition succeeds and is allowed and the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 29-12-1975 and that the Additional Commissioner dated 30-10-1969 are quashed. The case is, however, remanded to the Additional Commissioner for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.